Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.

[Hugo Slabbert <hugo () slabnet com>]

On Thu 2016-Jan-07 22:43:20 -0500, Valdis Kletnieks <Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu> wrote:

> So we went round and round back in November regarding Binge On! and whether
> it was net neutrality. So here's some closure to that...
>
> The EFF did some testing and discovered that what T-Mobile is actually doing
> doesn't match what they said it was...
>
> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/01/eff-confirms-t-mobiles-bingeon-optimization-just-throttling-applies
>
> Apparently, John Legere, CEO of T-Mobile, doesn't know who the EFF is,
> or why they're giving him a hard time.
>
> "Part B of my answer is, who the fuck are you, anyway, EFF?" Legere said. "Why
> are you stirring up so much trouble, and who pays you?"
>
> http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/7/10733298/john-legere-binge-on-lie
>
> /me makes popcorn....

And I'm sorry, but this line from Legere had me raging at my screen:

"There are people out there saying we’re “throttling.” They’re playing 
semantics! Binge On does NOT permanently slow down data nor remove customer 
control. Here’s the thing, mobile customers don’t always want or need giant 
heavy data files. So we created adaptive video technology to optimize for 
mobile screens and stream at a bitrate designed to stretch your data 
(pssst, Google, that's a GOOD thing)."[1]

...so...you're "optimizing" the bitrate of video traffic for mobile by 
lowering it to 1.5 mbps, but don't worry: it's not "throttling". And you're 
accusing the "other guys" of playing semantics?  Beside pure marketing 
doublespeak, I don't even know what actual logic he's using here.  
Apparently it's only "throttling" if it *permanently* slows down traffic, 
and BingeOn somehow doesn't do that (besides what the EFF is putting 
forward)?  Is it because even though it's enabled by default, there is 
still an "off" switch, and therefore user choice is maintained (though 
probalby not obvious to most consumers)?

Listen: I have no issue with doing shaping or traffic prioritization or 
whatever as your customer asks for it; we offer that as an option to 
customers to get the most out of their connections and I'm sure many of you 
do as well.  But:

1)  Those are done at the request of the customer, not opt-out.
2)  Be honest about what you're doing.

T-Mobile seems to be trying to spin this as if they have some magical 
technology that will re-encode streaming video on the fly to 480p, when 
really they're just ID-ing video and rate-limiting it (when it comes to 
video that doesn't match their technical requirements doc and doesn't do 
ABR down to 480p on the sending side).  Fine: just getting decent accuracy 
on various edge cases of identifying video traffic isn't trivial, so kudos, 
but don't blow smoke about it.  If Legere has some info about how this 
truly at a technical level is not just rate limiting, then show us that 
info.  Yes: I've read the "Content Provider Technical Requirements" doc[2] 
that talks about adaptive bitrate tech on the sending side:

"The content provider will provide video over T‐Mobile’s network using 
adaptive bit rate technology in which the server sending streaming video 
content will automatically adapt video resolution of the stream based on 
the capabilities of the data connection or as otherwise indicated by the 
T‐Mobile network."

But, that's for the content folks that are participating in the BingeOn 
setup for zero-rating.  The EFF's data indicates that if you're just a 
random video stream (or video media type file), you get rate limited.

With all of this said, I appreciate the challenge of getting something like 
this implemented at scale without going opt-out.  T-Mo is going for a PR 
win as well as, let's be honest, reducing network utilization by reducing 
the bitrate of video crossing the network, but it's *highly* unlikely that 
you're going to get enough critical mass in an opt-in effort to pull it 
off.  To T-Mo's credit, they're making the opt-out quite simple, but let's 
be clear that this is not a net neutral move if we go by the commonly 
accepted definitions:

"The idea is that a maximally useful public information network aspires to 
treat all content, sites, and platforms equally."[3]

"Net neutrality (also network neutrality, Internet neutrality, or net 
equality) is the principle that Internet service providers and governments 
should treat all data on the Internet the same, not discriminating or 
charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type 
of attached equipment, or mode of communication."[4]

The majority of the "fight" to date has been about the source and origin of 
the traffic, so the discussion often leans that direction, but there is no 
question that BingeOn works to identify a specific application or type of 
content (video) and then treats it differently from other traffic.

"So why are special interest groups -- and even Google! -- offended by 
this? Why are they trying to characterize this as a bad thing?"

Because you're drawing a box within which people have to play, which puts 
shackles on innovation.  For traffic destined for a BingeOn enabled T-Mo 
customer (which is everyone by default unless they opt out), content 
providers can choose to:

1.  Meet the technical requirements (possibly at real cost to them to adapt 
their infrastructure) and do adaptive bitrate streaming, and get capped at 
480p but be zero-rated.
2.  Do nothing, don't get zero-rated, and get rate-limited to 1.5 mbps.

Part of the concern from the net neut crowd is that creating little boxes 
like this hampers innovation and the development of novel new applications.  
BingeOn in and of itself may not directly curtail innovation, but the 
concern is that everyone can create their own little box with which content 
providers need to cooperate/interoperate.  Already in the BingeOn technical 
requirements doc, there is reference to basically a business relationship 
(e.g. "To ensure a good customer experience, any changes to a content 
provider’s streaming formats and/or mechanisms that could impact T‐Mobile’s 
ability to include the provider’s content in the offering must be 
communicated to T‐Mobile in advance").  Do we really want a situation where 
content providers need to establish direct relationships with any edge 
provider that runs a similar setup to BingeOn in order to ensure their 
traffic doesn't get squashed or degraded?

My gut says that most edge operators wouldn't have an issue with the 
practice of traffic prioritization or rate limiting as requested by 
customers (e.g. prioritize my VoIP traffic; cap offsite backup or 
replication traffic).  But those are explicit customer-initiated requests.  
I think it is legitimate to express concern when that type of traffic 
classification and differential treatment is applied en masse.  T-Mo (or at 
least Legere) are pandering to "the little guy" and dismissing legitimate 
reports as "bullshit" in a bunch of handwaving and PR.  Let's have an 
honest conversation about this, including who all stand to benefit and 
where there is legitimate harm or cause for concern.

--
Hugo

hugo () slabnet com: email, xmpp/jabber
PGP fingerprint (B178313E):
CF18 15FA 9FE4 0CD1 2319 1D77 9AB1 0FFD B178 313E

(also on Signal)

[1]https://newsroom.t-mobile.com/issues-insights-blog/binge-on-update-blog.htm
[2]http://www.t-mobile.com/content/dam/tmo/en-g/pdf/BingeOn-Video-Technical-Criteria-November-2015.pdf
[3]http://www.timwu.org/network_neutrality.html
[4]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature